Learning Fraction Concepts Through the Virtual-Abstract Instructional Sequence

  • Emily C. BouckEmail author
  • Jiyoon Park
  • Katie Cwiakala
  • Abbie Whorley
Original Paper


Fractions are an important mathematical concept for both more advanced mathematical concepts and daily living activities (e.g., cooking) and thus are important for all students to learn. In this study, researchers explored the use of the virtual-abstract (VA) instructional sequence to teach three middle school students with disabilities three fraction concepts—equivalent fractions, addition of fractions with unlike denominators, and multiplication of fractions by a whole number. For each student for each fraction concept, a functional relation existed between the intervention (i.e., the VA instructional sequence) and the dependent variable (i.e., accuracy on problems of the fraction concept). The students acquired the fraction concepts, but there were struggles to maintain their performance when no instruction was provided.


Mathematics Technology Manipulatives Intervention Middle school 



Funding was provided by Learning Disability Foundation of America.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. Ayres, P. L. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartholomew, A., Papay, C., McConnell, A., & Cease-Cook, J. (2015). Embedding secondary transition in the common core state standards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 329–335. Scholar
  3. Bouck, E. C., Bassette, L., Shurr, J., Park, J., Kerr, J., & Whorley, A. (2017a). Teaching equivalent fractions to secondary students with disabilities via the virtual-representational-abstract instructional sequence. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32, 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What are they and how teachers can use them? Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2018). Mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 41, 65–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouck, E. C., Park, J., Sprick, J., Shurr, J., Bassette, L., & Whorley, A. (2017b). Using the virtual-abstract instructional sequence to teach addition of fractions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 70, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Park, J. (2018a). The concrete-representational-abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouck, E. C., Shurr, J., Bassette, L., Park, J., Kerr, J., & Whorley, A. (2018b). Adding it up: Comparing concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with adding fractions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brainingcamp. (2018). Fraction tiles. Retrieved from Accessed 6 June 2019
  10. Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., MacIntrye, B., Zheng, R., & Golbuski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 536–544. Scholar
  11. Burns, B. A., & Hamm, E. M. (2011). A comparison of concrete and virtual manipulative use in third- and fourth-grade mathematics. School Sciences and Mathematics, 111, 256–261. Scholar
  12. Calhoon, M. B., Emerson, R. W., Flores, M., & Houchins, D. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 292–303. Scholar
  13. Carbonneau, K. J., & Marley, S. C. (2012). Activity-based learning strategies and academic achievement. In J. A. C. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), The international handbook of student achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 380–400. Scholar
  15. Clements, D. (1999). ‘Concrete’ manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, B. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Cook, B. G., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T. J., McWilliam, R. A., Tankersley, M., & Test, D. W. (2014). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234. Scholar
  18. Doabler, C. T., & Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics difficulties? Intervention for School and Clinic, 48, 276–285. Scholar
  19. Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1987). Using task variation to motivate handicapped students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(4), 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 195–207. Scholar
  21. Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research methodology. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gersten, R. M., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. Scholar
  23. Hord, C., & Newton, J. A. (2014). Investigating elementary mathematics curricula: Focus on students with learning disabilities. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan, N. C., Resnick, I., Rodrigues, J., Hansen, N., & Dyson, N. (2017). Delaware longitudinal study of fraction learning: Implications for helping children with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 621–630. Scholar
  25. Kellems, R. O., Frandsen, K., Hansen, B., Gabrielsen, T., Clarke, B., Simons, K., et al. (2016). Teaching multi-step math skills to adults with disabilities via video prompting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 58, 31–44. Scholar
  26. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Restructuring and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587–625. Scholar
  27. Mazzocco, M. M. M., Myers, G. F., Lewis, K. E., Hanich, L. B., & Murphy, M. M. (2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics learning disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 371–387. Scholar
  28. Mendiburo, M., & Hasselbring, T. (2014). Technology’s impact on fraction learning: An experimental comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33, 209–231.Google Scholar
  29. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372–377.Google Scholar
  30. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2017). NAEP mathematics report cards. Accessed 6 June 2019
  31. Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining non-overlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. Scholar
  33. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24, 5–25.Google Scholar
  34. Rodrigues, J., Dyson, N. I., Hansen, N., & Jordan, N. C. (2017). Preparing for algebra by building fraction sense. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49, 134–141. Scholar
  35. Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 175–186. Scholar
  36. Satsangi, R., Bouck, E. C., Taber-Doughty, T., Bofferding, L., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39, 240–253. Scholar
  37. Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shin, M., & Bryant, D. P. (2015). Fraction interventions for students struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 374–387. Scholar
  39. Siegler, R., Carpenter, T., Fennell, F., Geary, D., Lewis, J., Okamoto, Y., et al. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from Accessed 6 June 2019
  40. Siegler, R. S., & Pyke, A. A. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in understanding of fractions. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1994–2004. Scholar
  41. Singleton, D. K., Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., & Collins, B. C. (1999). A comparison of antecedent prompt and test and simultaneous prompting procedures in teaching grocery words to adolescents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 182–199.Google Scholar
  42. Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2011). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  43. Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tian, J., & Siegler, R. S. (2017). Fractions learning in children with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 614–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trespalacios, J. (2010). The effects of two generative activities on learner comprehension of part-whole meaning of rational numbers using virtual manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29, 327–346.Google Scholar
  46. Vukovic, R. K., Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Jordan, N. C., Gersten, R., & Siedler, R. S. (2014). Sources of individual differences in children’s understanding of fractions. Child Development, 85, 1461–1476. Scholar
  47. Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler intelligence scale for children. London: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
  48. White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.IoniaUSA

Personalised recommendations